The Origin, Tendencies and Principles of Government / A review of the rise and fall of nations from early historic time to the present; with special considerations regarding the future of the United States as the representative government of the world and the form of administration which will secure this consummation. Also, papers on human equality, as represented by labor and its representative, money; and the meaning and significance of life from a scientific standpoint, with its prophecies for the great future.

by Victoria C. Woodhull

SECOND PART OF MRS. VICTORIA C. WOODHULL’S PHILIPPIC—LAWS, PEOPLES AND COMMUNITIES FROM A FEMALE POINT OF VIEW—LESSONS IN HISTORY, POLITICS AND WAR.

[Mrs. Victoria C. Woodhull, head of the firm of female brokers in Broad street, presents to the readers of the Herald the following communication, the second part of her paper on “The Tendencies of Government,” the preface to which has already appeared. Mrs. Woodhull has undertaken the difficult task of enlightening the public mind on the best means of running the Government machine of America. Though her views, expressed in this paper, have a wide range, it must be said that she is but putting herself in wind for a tremendous attack on “the best Government the world ever saw.” Being already in the race for the Presidency (not of the Sorosis, but of the United States), her pronunciamentos are of course very important:]

It must begin to be apparent that the proposition is, that the evolution of government does not differ from that of simplest organic forms either in principle or in mode of operation. The same laws that govern the growth and multiply the plant also govern society and multiply it. The same laws that bring fruit to perfection and dissolution perfect and dissolve societies. The same laws that produce and control the units of the animal kingdom produce and control the units of society. The same law that governs the ebbing and flowing of the tides, that determines whether the component parts of water shall exist as water or vapor, determines the movements of society and the conditions of its existence; and the same law that produces an earthquake here, a volcanic eruption there or a terrific hurricane elsewhere, produces the earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and the hurricanes that are ever modifying and changing society. Symbols of all the various processes society passes through in its growth and extension can be found in every other department of the universe; or, to assert the same fact differently, everywhere in the universe there is a constant effort to attain an equilibrium—a continuous working to supply wants, an unceasing process of demand and supply, which are universal exemplifications of the law that motion is always in the direction of the least resistance or the greatest traction, or the resultant of the two operating conjointly.

But what does history tell of the foundation and dissolution of governments, and what illustrations of the law of progress does it afford? As before stated, those who have most earnestly studied pre-historic time have found ample evidence that the time was when the head of the family was the highest sovereign power, and so absolute in its character that the individual was entirely submerged in it, and State supremacy was an impossibility. Nothing but anarchy and confusion could have attended such rule; constant rivalry, jealousy and contention must have kept up a continual strife between adjacent families, which could know no settlement except through the subjugation or destruction of the weaker of the contending parties. Of this order of governmental aggregations, it is questionable if the earth at present furnishes any illustrations, unless it be in some part thereof to which the discoverer has not yet penetrated. Of the next, or tribal, order of aggregates, it does, however; and with this second order the real analysis and comparison must begin, though we have no objective means of demonstrating the conditions stated as existing. When family sovereignty was universal it can readily be seen that the continued existence of such conditions would be impossible, for the continuous subjugations and amalgamations of families would lead directly to tribal communities, at first in absolute subjection to one tribe, which would grow into some power, distributed among the several tribes. So also would the joining together of several weak families to resist a more powerful neighbor lead directly to confederation.

The subjugation and reduction of families to bondage and slavery was the beginning of that system of interdependence now so broadly extended into commerce, exchange and mutual dependence for almost the necessities of life. In the times referred to every man was his own farmer, tailor, carpenter and cook, and this condition was only modified when the individuals of conquering families began to rely upon the conquered for certain services they otherwise would have been obliged to render themselves. All of these facts exemplify another philosophic proposition—that for anything in the universe to remain in its homogeneous condition is impossible, which impossibility is the result of the fact that motion must produce change, while constant motion is inevitable so long as force persists and matter resists.

That eminent historian of the third decade of the eighteenth century, Rollin, thus remarks of the earliest monuments which are preserved, treating of the progress from simple to complex forms of government:—“To know in what manner the states and kingdoms were founded that have divided the universe, the steps whereby they rose to that pitch of grandeur related in history, by what ties families and cities united in order to constitute one body of society, and to live together under the same laws and common authority, it will be necessary to trace things back in a manner to the infancy of the world and to those ages in which mankind, being dispersed into different regions, began to people the earth.” In these early ages every father was the supreme head of his family; the arbiter and judge of whatever contests and divisions might arise within it; the natural legislator over his little society, the defender and protector of those who, by their birth, education and weakness, were under his protection and safeguard. The laws which the paternal vigilance established in this domestic senate being dictated with no other view than to promote the general welfare, were concerted with such children as were come to years of maturity and accepted by the inferiors with a full and free consent, were religiously kept and preserved in families as an hereditary polity, to which they owed their peace and security.

But different motives gave rise to different laws. One man, overjoyed at the birth of a first born son, resolved to distinguish him from future children by bestowing on him a more considerable share of his possessions, and giving him greater authority in his family. Another, more attentive to the interests of a beloved wife or darling daughter, whom he wanted to settle in the world, thought it incumbent on him to secure her rights and increase her advantages. The solitary and cheerless state a wife might be reduced to in case she should become a widow affected more intimately another man, and made him provide beforehand for the subsistence and comfort of a woman who formed his felicity. In proportion as every family increased by the birth of children and their marrying into other families, they extended their domain, and by insensible degrees formed towns and cities. From these different views and others of a like nature arose the different customs and rights of nations.

These societies growing in time very numerous, and the families, dividing into different branches, each having its head, it was necessary to intrust one person with the whole in order to unite all these heads under one authority and to maintain the public good by a uniform administration. To heighten the lustre of this newly acquired dignity and to cause them to devote themselves entirely to the public good, the title of king was bestowed upon them and they were invested with full power to administer justice and to punish crime.

At first every city had its particular king, who, being more solicitous of preserving his dominion than of enlarging it, confined his ambition within its limits But the unavoidable feuds that break out between neighbors, the jealousy against a more powerful rival, the turbulent spirit of a prince, his martial disposition or thirst for aggrandizing himself and displaying his ability, gave rise to wars which frequently ended in the entire subjugation of the vanquished and the addition of their cities to the victors. Thus a first victory led the way to a second, which, making a prince more powerful and enterprising, several cities and provinces became united under one monarch, forming kingdoms of greater or less extent, according to the degree the victor pushed his conquests. Such was the origin of the famous empires that at times included the greater part of the known world.

From various historical authorities the following summaries of history are obtained, and are presented as containing some of the principal points by which the general progress of the world should be judged. The principal empires of ancient time will be observed separately; those of modern time under one head, because of the more connected character of their histories, and because of the more general knowledge that is possessed of them. Then the general course events took will be noticed, the deductions that legitimately flow from them introduced, and the bearing they have upon present affairs of the world in reference to its future condition of government considered.

There are several nations that have, at various times, and that still do claim, the greatest antiquity. The Chinese, the Indians, the Syrians and Egyptians appear to have the most evidence to support their claim. The Egyptians once accorded it to the Phrygians, through the result of the somewhat singular experiment of confining two children away from all intercourse with the world until they began to cry, “Beecos,” which was found to be the Phrygian word for bread. This word, Psammetichus, the King decided must be of the original language, and consequently that the Phrygians were the original people.

Manetho, a high priest in Egypt, who had charge of the sacred archives, pretends to have extracted from the writings of Mercurius and to have proved thereby that up to the time of Alexander the Great, whose reign began 356 years B. C., there had been thirty dynasties in Egypt, which together covered a space of more than 5,300 years. If this claim be allowed, Egypt has existed 7,500 years. Herodotus says “that the Egyptian priests computed 341 generations until the reign of Sethon,” which began 719 years B. C. “These generations,” he adds, “make 11,341 years.” They also counted a like number of priests and kings, who had succeeded one another without interruption, under the name of “Pyromas,” signifying good and virtuous. These priests hewed 341 colossal statues in wood of these Pyromas, all arranged in a large hall in the order of their succession.

Let these claims be false or true, historians unanimously agree that Menes was the first King of Egypt, and that his reign began 2,188 years B. C., which would make its historic age about 5,000 years; undoubtedly its fabulous age would cover a sufficient period to make what is claimed, at least by Menetho, if not by the priests Herodotus mentions. These claims will seem the more probable when we are informed that a few ages only after Menes, the first King, one Busiris, built the famous city of Thebes, and made it the seat of his empire, which would seem to indicate that the arts and sciences had at that time been carried to a considerable degree of perfection, not only in the building of cities, but also in their adornment; for we are told that the public buildings were decorated with sculptures and paintings of the most exquisite beauty.

Additional force is also given these claims by the fact that Osymandyas, the successor of this Busiris, collected a magnificent library at Thebes, called “The Treasury of Remedies for Diseases of the Soul,” which would indicate that polite learning had made considerable advancement as well in philosophy as in religion. Historians also inform us that Cham, the father of Misriam—the same with Menes—was the second son of Noah, and it is supposed that he retired into Africa after the “confusion of tongues.” He was doubtless the Jupiter Ammont so long worshiped as a god by the Egyptians. We are also informed that this Cham, or Ham, had three other sons—Chus, who settled Ethiopia; Phut, who settled Africa westward from Egypt, and Canaan in the country that afterward was called after him, and whose descendants were called Phœnicians.

When we remember the so-called flood; that Cham was the second son of Noah and the father of Menes, the first king, 2,189 years B. C., and that 200 years later Osymandyas, one of his successors, was able to fit out an expedition against the Bactrians of Asia, consisting of 400,000 foot and 20,000 horse, it must be conceded that if the “flood” destroyed all the people existing on the face of the earth, except those saved in the ark, the descendants of Cham must have multiplied with inconceivable rapidity to have made the collecting of such an army possible. But this is not more astonishing than the supposition would be that there could be contained in the atmosphere surrounding the earth sufficient moisture to form the amount of water, which, falling through a space of forty days and nights, should cover the whole earth to the depth narrated of Noah’s flood; nor more so than that the temperature of the whole earth at that time should have been so uniform as to have permitted rain throughout, instead of hail or snow, in frigid portions thereof. And if we were to inquire where such a quantity of water was borrowed from and returned, a consistent reply would be equally surprising; for it is now known that there is just as large a quantity of the elements that compose water at present as there was then.

Considerable latitude can be allowed the statements regarding the flood, when it is remembered that the knowledge of geography, astronomy and meteorology must have been exceedingly limited at that time. But if credence is given to it as having occurred—and it is conceded that all the people Noah knew were destroyed by it—and a solution is sought, it can be imagined that a tremendous upheaval of mountains in Northern Asia might have thrown the waters of the Arctic Ocean southward over the country Noah dwelt in; but this could not have been the result of forty days and forty nights rain, though it may have rained continuously during that period, and may have been considered such by Noah.

This digression was not made so much to consider the probabilities of a flood having occurred as to give additional force to the historic fact that but a few generations after it is said to have occurred, immense tribes of people did exist in that portion of the world bordering on the eastern Mediterranean Sea, who were possessed of considerable general knowledge, immense wealth, and, for that age, good ideas of governmental justice; besides these people, it must also be remembered vast hosts of barbarians existed in the more remote parts of Europe, Asia and Africa, of whose origin and condition nothing can be positively known, either of which bodies of people could not have descended from Noah’s family through the common course of reproduction.

What concerns this inquiry most, is not whether all or any of the narratives of ancient writers are entitled to credence, but how and in what directions the ancient tribal nations extended themselves and became merged one with another. Following the history of Egypt from the time of Menes through the reigns of his successors—Busiris, Osymandyas (whose mausoleum displayed such extravagant magnificence), and Euchoreus, who built the famous Memphis and made it the key to the Nile—on through the space of two hundred and sixty years of the Shepherd Kings, from Phœnicia to Amosis, who expelled them, and reunited the country, and to Sesostris, the most powerful king and the greatest conqueror the world had then known, but little evidence of increasing proficiency in science and art is found, but much that the acquired standard was continually being extended among the people and among surrounding nations.

With the reign of Sesostris a new era was inaugurated, and a mighty impetus to general civilization, as well as to special advancement, was given by his wisdom and foresight. Amenophis, the father of Sesostris, no doubt feeling the weight of impending events, foresaw the necessity of preparing him to meet them. He not only took great care that his education in the arts and sciences, the principles of government, philosophy and the art of war, should be complete, but also caused all male children of Egypt born the same day he was, to be educated with him, with the distinct understanding that they were to be his future comrades, his officers, ministers and friends in the aggressive wars he intended he should engage in when he should ascend the throne. It is said that the celebrated Mercurius had charge over them all, especially in politics, war and government.

The first war Sesostris engaged in was against the Arabs, which his father sent him upon while yet quite young, that he might acquire practical knowledge in conducting military campaigns. This people, who had never before been subdued, he conquered, and added their country to Egypt The next year he invaded Lybia, a country to the southwest of Egypt. During this expedition his father died, leaving the throne to him. He immediately formed a no less design than of conquering the whole world. This was in 1491 B. C., and he was probably the first of the great conquerors of ancient times who conceived the idea of reducing the world to a single form of government, and most assuredly the first possessed of sufficient wisdom to carry out so gigantic an undertaking. The manner he set about to do this, and the capacity he evinced in all the preparations, we shall have occasion to compare hereafter with that pursued and shown by others in after time, simply remarking here that it is safe to conclude that Sesostris was great among the greatest; for, to boundless ambition—possessed by many—he united the capacity to sustain it, which few can boast. While making the most extensive preparations for raising and disciplining armies for foreign operations, he was not less active in providing for sustaining the dignity and power of his Government during his absence, which he foresaw would give opportunity for rivals to attempt to overthrow for their own benefit. His first army consisted of 600,000 foot, 24,000 horse, and 27,000 armed chariots, and its principal officers were the 1,700 youths who had been educated with him, and who now made it possible for him to secure perfect discipline and the greatest efficiency.

With this army he first invaded and conquered Ethiopia, and made it tributary to Egypt. He next fitted out an expedition of 400 sail, and made himself master of all the islands and coasts of the Red Sea, as a preparatory step to the conquest of Asia, then advanced into Asia, subduing all the countries, even “beyond the Ganges.” Returning westward, he conquered Scythia, Armenia, Cappadocia, Colchis, and all Asia Minor: then crossed into Europe, and would probably have subdued all its nations had he not encountered a great scarcity of provisions in Thrace, which caused him to return. Herodotus says that the Egyptian Empire extended from the Danube even beyond the Ganges, and included all of Africa, and that all over this vast territory there were erected pillars, on which was inscribed “Sesostris, king of kings and lord of lords, subdued this country by the power of his arms;” which, while it displayed a commendable spirit in marking the limits of his conquest, it at the same time evinces a growing personal vanity that afterward seriously tarnished his early fame.

After having thus conquered the then entire known world, Sesostris returned to Egypt with innumerable captives and laden with spoils, and, by devoting himself to enriching and benefiting Egypt, rather than to extending his dominions, fame and grandeur, showed that his ambition had expended itself in his first great campaign. From all that can be gathered of his reign over Egypt, it must be inferred that no country before, if since, was ever more happily disposed toward its sovereign. The many monuments of his greatness, throughout his dominions, were covered with inscriptions, asserting that all Sesostris’ mighty deeds were accomplished without burdening his subjects; but, on the contrary, they all had become able, through them, to pass the remainder of their days in “calm and repose.”

Having subdued so much of the world, had he been equally ambitious to extend over it the same beneficent Government that he held over Egypt—which he could easily have done through the numerous competent persons the foresight of Amenophis had provided him with, who were well versed in his policy and administration of affairs—Sesostris would undoubtedly have earned and been entitled to the appellation of the world’s benefactor. It appears, however, that he did not exert himself at all in this direction, but was content to receive the annual tributes he levied to enrich Egypt proper. His reasons for pursuing this course, rather than of endeavoring to reward his most worthy adherents by making them rulers of the countries they had assisted him to conquer, are incomprehensible, and that they should not have urged him to it equally so. When it is considered how wisely and happily he governed Egypt, it can be imagined how vastly he might have benefited the conquered people by diffusing correct knowledge of the art of government among them through extending his rule over them.

As it was, it came about, that various Egyptian colonies scattered here and there over the conquered country, and in this way were instrumental in spreading the wisdom of their nation. It was one of these colonies that afterward became the famous Athens—the seat of learning, literature and philosophy. It was about this time also that the use of letters was introduced by one Cadmus, whom the Egyptians claimed to be of their country; but the majority of writers agree that they originated in Syria, and that they were identical with the Hebraic. Of these, however, there were but sixteen, four others being added some two hundred and fifty years later, and the remaining four a long time afterward.

The reign of Sesostris may justly be considered as having produced more general and extended influence upon the world than that of any of his ancestors of any country, and that nothing occurred that can hold any degree of comparison to it until the time of Alexander, more than a thousand years afterward. Sesostris was succeeded by Pheron, and he by Proteus, who dedicated the beautiful temple to “Venus the Stranger,” supposed to be “Helen of Troy,” famous for her beauty, and who was stolen by Paris, from whom she was taken by Proteus and returned to the Greeks.

Under succeeding reigns, the glory of Egypt began to decline, violence and cruelty to usurp the places where justice and moderation had so long prevailed, and jealousies, petty malice and personal aggrandizement to take the place of that love of country which is superior to self; nor could aught else have been expected from the ill-advised luxury and ease the country obtained under Sesostris, which should have been converted into action and expended upon tributary nations. The downward tendency, or the disintegrating process, having begun, demonstrated that the principle upon which Egypt rose and flourished had culminated, and was now to be disseminated among other nations and tribes. Nor could any effort of succeeding rulers, who saw the process at work and understood the causes thereof, stop the downward tendency, which continued with but temporary interruptions until the death of Tharaca, 687 years B. C., when the kingdom remained in a state of anarchy, until twelve noblemen conspired to divide it among themselves. For some superstitious reasons Psammetichus, one of the twelve, was banished; but he, entering into a league with some Greeks, made war upon the eleven, defeated them, and again united the kingdom under one rule, and remained sole possessor of it until his death.

Six hundred and sixteen years B. C. one Nechos arose, who attempted the cutting of a canal from the Nile to the Red Sea, but was unsuccessful. This, however, was partly atoned for by the accomplishment of a voyage entirely around the coast of Africa by some skilful Phœnician sailors he employed, they leaving Egypt by the Red Sea and returning by the way of the Mediterranean after an absence of three years. This passage was made some 2,000 years before the Portuguese discovered this way to the Indies, by which these Phœnicians were able to enter the Mediterranean through the Straits of Gibraltar.

Trouble after trouble now distracted the kingdom, and its power and influence declined with every reign, until the Persians, under Cambyses, 525 years B. C., subdued it. Since the downfall of the Persian Empire, Egypt has successively been subject to the Macedonians, Romans, Saracens, Mamelukes, and lastly the Turks, by whom it is now nominally possessed. The late accomplishment of the project Nechos failed in may be prophetic of radical changes in the condition Egypt has so long been submerged in—the indications being favorable for a return to considerable importance among the nations of the earth.

THE TENDENCIES OF GOVERNMENT.

[Revised from the New York Herald of May 2d, 1870.]